Well out last night with Cardiffians and born and bred Valleys types, as a little straw poll. " Lunacy", and "Scots have lost the plot"
The Welsh, from Lloyd George on, are mostly pragmatists. We know that without English money we are Moldova.
And as long as we hold in to that thought sanity will prevail. Honestly I listen to Leanne Wood in utter disbelief every time she's on the TV. Fortunately Labour in Wales is a bit better than SLAB I think and the Tories here not as weak and anyway the links to England in general are far stronger I think than Scotland too. I mean it's only 25 mins to the Severn Bridge from Cardiff at a push let alone most of Gwent. the NE and A55 corridor all link to England's NW economically too.
Given that the UK is about to break-up as someone born and living in England I am struggling to see any benefit to us of not going alone ourselves. Although it's harsh, Wales and Northern Ireland are indisputably drains on England's finances. Following the progressive, social democratic lead of Scotland surely it's time to put England first.
Your left wing anti Thatcher beliefs were not deeply held then?
I think it's pretty obvious that's not a genuine Orange Banner. In all likelihood, it's a spoof by Irish Republicans.
"Pretty obvious" huh?
That photograph has been very widely spread on social media, and very heavily commented on. I have never seen anyone else ever question its authenticity, from either side.
It is in fact very obvious that it is genuine. And these are the folks that form the backbone of the Bitter Together campaign in large chunks of the Central Belt.
for a start off the photos in Ireland you pillock.
The Sinn Fein logo of a UI is on the top of the banner.
#dicksonhead.
Bit of a clue in the words as well "Sharing their values and culture". The use of the word "their" is hardly something an Orange Orderist would put on their own banner!
Given that the UK is about to break-up as someone born and living in England I am struggling to see any benefit to us of not going alone ourselves. Although it's harsh, Wales and Northern Ireland are indisputably drains on England's finances. Following the progressive, social democratic lead of Scotland surely it's time to put England first.
Your left wing anti Thatcher beliefs were not deeply held then?
SO was mocking the Nat claims to be progressive social democrats when they're quite the opposite.
Mr. Patrick, I don't think we should change the flag. However, if we did that would at least be a good alternative, unlike some of the bloody awful designs I've seen.
Just saw a video about potential new UK flags if Scotland goes. I was unaware of the cross of St.David (gold cross on a black background) that has been an unofficial Welsh flag for centuries. The proposal based on this is simply to replace the blue in the Union Jack with black. Looks fabulous, clean and frankly not much different from today. Is now my firm favourite.
I am 99% sure we will keep the flag as is. Everybody likes it. And the fashion industry loves it. Brilliant branding. It will stay.
Also I sense our keeping it will slightly annoy Nats. All the more reason.
Hmm....The Union Jack is probably the No.1 design icon of all time. Truly brilliant. Yes the fashion industry loves it and you see shirts, bags, ipad covers, etc the world over. It just looks lovely. But for me the real genius is the way that the crosses and saltires were mixed. Red, white and DARK blue works from a graphics design / colour palette point of view really nicely. (Note that the Scottish saltire's background is a notably lighter shade of blue and one that wouldn't really work on the Union Jack). None of that would be lost to a black background brand refresh giving a nod to Wales. Our new flag would be different - but basically the same. And still brilliant. I expect to see red, white and black Union Jack t-shirts on sale in Beijing by Monday!
Union Flag blue is Pantone 280, Saltire blue is Pantone 300.
Well out last night with Cardiffians and born and bred Valleys types, as a little straw poll. " Lunacy", and "Scots have lost the plot"
The Welsh, from Lloyd George on, are mostly pragmatists. We know that without English money we are Moldova.
And as long as we hold in to that thought sanity will prevail. Honestly I listen to Leanne Wood in utter disbelief every time she's on the TV. Fortunately Labour in Wales is a bit better than SLAB I think and the Tories here not as weak and anyway the links to England in general are far stronger I think than Scotland too. I mean it's only 25 mins to the Severn Bridge from Cardiff at a push let alone most of Gwent. the NE and A55 corridor all link to England's NW economically too.
SIndy might be good* for Wales. An independent Scotland removes a chunk of deprived regions competing for jobs from Govt Agencies. UK tax offices can't be there any more (apparently this isn't just an economic/political reality, but is a legal requirement as well). Newport sounds good.
*or bad depending on your point of view, considering the knock-on effect on political make-up of the country.
Just saw a video about potential new UK flags if Scotland goes. I was unaware of the cross of St.David (gold cross on a black background) that has been an unofficial Welsh flag for centuries. The proposal based on this is simply to replace the blue in the Union Jack with black. Looks fabulous, clean and frankly not much different from today. Is now my firm favourite.
I am 99% sure we will keep the flag as is. Everybody likes it. And the fashion industry loves it. Brilliant branding. It will stay.
Also I sense our keeping it will slightly annoy Nats. All the more reason.
Hmm....The Union Jack is probably the No.1 design icon of all time. Truly brilliant. Yes the fashion industry loves it and you see shirts, bags, ipad covers, etc the world over. It just looks lovely. But for me the real genius is the way that the crosses and saltires were mixed. Red, white and DARK blue works from a graphics design / colour palette point of view really nicely. (Note that the Scottish saltire's background is a notably lighter shade of blue and one that wouldn't really work on the Union Jack). None of that would be lost to a black background brand refresh giving a nod to Wales. Our new flag would be different - but basically the same. And still brilliant. I expect to see red, white and black Union Jack t-shirts on sale in Beijing by Monday!
Union Flag blue is Pantone 300, Saltire blue is Pantone 280.
Indeed - much too light and doesn't really work in the union flag. Does that portend something.....? ;-)
I think it's pretty obvious that's not a genuine Orange Banner. In all likelihood, it's a spoof by Irish Republicans.
"Pretty obvious" huh?
That photograph has been very widely spread on social media, and very heavily commented on. I have never seen anyone else ever question its authenticity, from either side.
It is in fact very obvious that it is genuine. And these are the folks that form the backbone of the Bitter Together campaign in large chunks of the Central Belt.
for a start off the photos in Ireland you pillock.
The Sinn Fein logo of a UI is on the top of the banner.
#dicksonhead.
Bit of a clue in the words as well "Sharing their values and culture". The use of the word "their" is hardly something an Orange Orderist would put on their own banner!
Did we ever get the data from this mystery poll in the S Telegraph? I know we've had the sample size from it and the result, but I see nothing else other than Boon in aforementioned paper saying to call it an 'outlier'.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Well out last night with Cardiffians and born and bred Valleys types, as a little straw poll. " Lunacy", and "Scots have lost the plot"
The Welsh, from Lloyd George on, are mostly pragmatists. We know that without English money we are Moldova.
And as long as we hold in to that thought sanity will prevail. Honestly I listen to Leanne Wood in utter disbelief every time she's on the TV. Fortunately Labour in Wales is a bit better than SLAB I think and the Tories here not as weak and anyway the links to England in general are far stronger I think than Scotland too. I mean it's only 25 mins to the Severn Bridge from Cardiff at a push let alone most of Gwent. the NE and A55 corridor all link to England's NW economically too.
SIndy might be good* for Wales. An independent Scotland removes a chunk of deprived regions competing for jobs from Govt Agencies. UK tax offices can't be there any more (apparently this isn't just an economic/political reality, but is a legal requirement as well). Newport sounds good.
*or bad depending on your point of view, considering the knock-on effect on political make-up of the country.
Yes I can see more London largesse such as relocated Scottish public sector jobs ( there is a big HMRC office in Newport already actually), which would be ironic and Wales' gain ( probably with the likes of Newcastle and Leeds). However, great though that is it's still welfarism at one remove. Swansea has the DVLA, Newport the Patent Office, Cardiff Companies' House to name three now.
I'd guess there may be a slight reduction in Welsh MP's for a bit more devolution here but with Scotland gone EV4EL might die down as Wales and NI would remain as very small anomalies in an essentially English system, unlikely to alter England's elections more than once every fifty odd years ( especially as NI has Sinn Fein seats that remain inactive in HoC terms).
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.He could,though,do something useful both for the anti-separitists and himself by intervening in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS due to the TTIP trade deals.The beginning of the upsurge in the separatist vote can be traced to Salmond using this to his advantage in the 2nd tv debate with Darling. All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin. That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
So douze points, a N Korean ambassador, the right to pointlessly pontificate at 3.00 am at the UN with nobody listening, and the chance to wave at V Putin's reconnaissance aircraft as they photograph Ben Nevis with impunity. Oh and buffer all social justice as the economy's tanked.
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.He could,though,do something useful both for the anti-separitists and himself by intervening in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS due to the TTIP trade deals.The beginning of the upsurge in the separatist vote can be traced to Salmond using this to his advantage in the 2nd tv debate with Darling. All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin. That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
I reckon that no more than 5% of the population have ever heard of TTIP. Let alone what its potential real implications are or are not. All referring to it in the context of the Scottish Independence debate would do is undermine the line that the NHS is protected by being a devolved topic. Nothing wrong though with pointing out that SNP spending on NHS has shrunk whilst it has grown in England. Of course only a member of the Coalition (ie. not Labour) can do that!
I think it's pretty obvious that's not a genuine Orange Banner. In all likelihood, it's a spoof by Irish Republicans.
"Pretty obvious" huh?
That photograph has been very widely spread on social media, and very heavily commented on. I have never seen anyone else ever question its authenticity, from either side.
It is in fact very obvious that it is genuine. And these are the folks that form the backbone of the Bitter Together campaign in large chunks of the Central Belt.
for a start off the photos in Ireland you pillock.
The Sinn Fein logo of a UI is on the top of the banner.
#dicksonhead.
Bit of a clue in the words as well "Sharing their values and culture". The use of the word "their" is hardly something an Orange Orderist would put on their own banner!
Morning all. With the various SNP comments on not taking their share of UK debts. Could they renege on PFI payments on NHS hospitals etc? Where would the buck stop?
Marr 16 minutes Salmond 12 minute Darling plus plenty plenty of free hits for Salmond and constant interruption of Darling disrupting his flow. What BBC bias?
Did we ever get the data from this mystery poll in the S Telegraph? I know we've had the sample size from it and the result, but I see nothing else other than Boon in aforementioned paper saying to call it an 'outlier'.
Poll was undertaken by ICM. 705 Scots polled between Sep 10 and 12. No sign of data though.
Did Alex Salmond say "there no such thing as a no voter, just a deferred yes voter" on the Andrew Marr show? The man's dangerous and needs to bestopped
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.
Whatever the arguments about whether Cameron going to Scotland is counterproductive or not, it is ironically the Tories who are best placed to make emotional appeals for the Scots to stay. Because they are the ones for which claims of their position being guided by 'self/party-interest' are least convincing.
Did Alex Salmond say "there no such thing as a no voter, just a deferred yes voter" on the Andrew Marr show? The man's dangerous and needs to bestopped
Is he planning for 2nd referendum in 5 years time?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.He could,though,do something useful both for the anti-separitists and himself by intervening in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS due to the TTIP trade deals.The beginning of the upsurge in the separatist vote can be traced to Salmond using this to his advantage in the 2nd tv debate with Darling. All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin. That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
I reckon that no more than 5% of the population have ever heard of TTIP. Let alone what its potential real implications are or are not. All referring to it in the context of the Scottish Independence debate would do is undermine the line that the NHS is protected by being a devolved topic. Nothing wrong though with pointing out that SNP spending on NHS has shrunk whilst it has grown in England. Of course only a member of the Coalition (ie. not Labour) can do that!
Well I am one that 5% and I have no idea how a trade deal threatens the NHS. If someone could explain it to me I would be grateful (yes, I did read the article mentioned by Mr. Volcano Pete up-thread).
- Rest of UK overwhelmingly opposed to currency union: 65% (76% of those who've made up their minds). Same result for Scottish MP's attending Westminster from this Friday onwards.
- Scotland should not participate in 2015 election if Yes: 70% (80% of those who have made a decision)
- UK government would not be legitimate in 2015 if dependent on Scottish MPs post Yes: 72% (86%)
- Small majority for EV4EL, with it split between a specifically new parliament, or just by limiting voting rights at Westminster.
Did Alex Salmond say "there no such thing as a no voter, just a deferred yes voter" on the Andrew Marr show? The man's dangerous and needs to bestopped
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
Did we ever get the data from this mystery poll in the S Telegraph? I know we've had the sample size from it and the result, but I see nothing else other than Boon in aforementioned paper saying to call it an 'outlier'.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
This is the potentially interesting one. It's probably in the interests of EU core members to have Scotland on their side of the Schengen border instead of the UK's side, which totally shafts Scotland and England by interfering with trade flows, but allows Scotland to run a very GDP-expanding immigration policy.
And emotionally Salmond might be quite happy to have a border, as it helps cement independence from England and helps make sure it doesn't get reversed.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
yes but think of all the messages of support from Sweden and the Cayman Islands.
Morning all. With the various SNP comments on not taking their share of UK debts. Could they renege on PFI payments on NHS hospitals etc? Where would the buck stop?
The debt issue will be dealt with as part of the overall separation agreement. Until it is resolved, there will be no such agreement, so Scotland will not be legally independent. In that sense the nationalists will be saved from themselves.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
Morning all. With the various SNP comments on not taking their share of UK debts. Could they renege on PFI payments on NHS hospitals etc? Where would the buck stop?
Do they have PFI in Scotland?
The debt thing is not serious. It's the UK's debt and "Scotland's share" will just be an internal arrangement between the FUK and Scotland. There are therefore plenty of ways for the FUK to recover it if they so chose. Retaining an equivalent portion of Scottish Assets. Adding clauses to future trade agreements containing %charges for repayment of the debt. Or simply making life difficult for Scotland to get things it wants.
And at the end of the day, the UK could write the debt off tomorrow if they so wished (and judged that it wouldn't have a significant effect on inflation). It wouldn't even require any new money printing since a greater than the equivalent sum is already "held" by the Bank of England through Quantitative Easing. So rather than money printing it would involve the cancellation of money burning.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
Are pollsters taking postal voters into account? At least 17% of the electorate have registered for a postal vote, and most have already voted.
And how does postal fraud split between the two sides? Yes have more people involved, many of whom believe their opponents are all things under the sun, which makes a person more likely to commit what they might term a professional foul. But no-one would accuse the unionist parties of not having some members with a similar attitude.
The closer the result is (and it could well be very close indeed), the higher the turnout and the higher the likelihood that the losing side will make accusations of large-scale fraud. (And most Edinburgh lawyers are unionist, so if Yes win there may be some interesting legal action.)
The only communication I've received from my MSP, who is SNP, was a questionnaire asking me how I was going to vote. Or to be exact, the question was the same as the referendum question but no reference was made to the referendum. The cover letter was on Holyrood-headed notepaper. Is this type of thing common? Can't recall a representative at local, Scottish or British level writing to me before to ask how I was planning to vote.
Just saw a video about potential new UK flags if Scotland goes. I was unaware of the cross of St.David (gold cross on a black background) that has been an unofficial Welsh flag for centuries. The proposal based on this is simply to replace the blue in the Union Jack with black. Looks fabulous, clean and frankly not much different from today. Is now my firm favourite.
I am 99% sure we will keep the flag as is. Everybody likes it. And the fashion industry loves it. Brilliant branding. It will stay.
Also I sense our keeping it will slightly annoy Nats. All the more reason.
Hmm....The Union Jack is probably the No.1 design icon of all time. Truly brilliant. Yes the fashion industry loves it and you see shirts, bags, ipad covers, etc the world over. It just looks lovely. But for me the real genius is the way that the crosses and saltires were mixed. Red, white and DARK blue works from a graphics design / colour palette point of view really nicely. (Note that the Scottish saltire's background is a notably lighter shade of blue and one that wouldn't really work on the Union Jack). None of that would be lost to a black background brand refresh giving a nod to Wales. Our new flag would be different - but basically the same. And still brilliant. I expect to see red, white and black Union Jack t-shirts on sale in Beijing by Monday!
Union Flag blue is Pantone 300, Saltire blue is Pantone 280.
Indeed - much too light and doesn't really work in the union flag. Does that portend something.....? ;-)
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
That's a bold call! When the cash drains away; the high rate taxpayers follow it in their taxi to the airport or in their cars to Carlisle and Newcastle; when benefits are slashed; when basic rate taxes go up to 40%; when everything from food to stamps is costing more. And when the jobs have dried up - those wanting to work have to set off down to the hated South. Scots becoming the new Poles, working in whatever jobs they can to remit money back to feed their bairns....
At that point you think that Salmond will still be the hero who delivered independence - because living standards are not really an issue?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
I am not so sure. Once the YES vote goes through, I reckon 65-70% will start backing Independence. It's the love for your country bit.
They will accept lowered living statndards for, say, 5 years. It will be sold as the "price" for freedom. Then like all economies , the Scottish economy will have rebalanced and start picking up.
The difficult years will be described as England's revenge. That line will be easily accepted.
Not really, much different here from 2008 - 2013 !
Personally, unless NO can win decisively, say, 10 points, I think it would be best to separate.
Did we ever get the data from this mystery poll in the S Telegraph? I know we've had the sample size from it and the result, but I see nothing else other than Boon in aforementioned paper saying to call it an 'outlier'.
Poll was undertaken by ICM. 705 Scots polled between Sep 10 and 12. No sign of data though.
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.He could,though,do something useful both for the anti-separitists and himself by intervening in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS due to the TTIP trade deals.The beginning of the upsurge in the separatist vote can be traced to Salmond using this to his advantage in the 2nd tv debate with Darling. All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin. That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.He could,though,do something useful both for the anti-separitists and himself by intervening in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS due to the TTIP trade deals.The beginning of the upsurge in the separatist vote can be traced to Salmond using this to his advantage in the 2nd tv debate with Darling. All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin. That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
Scotland also has it's own version of Coronation St. where everybody wears tam o'shanters and Tyrone goes round headbutting people.
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.He could,though,do something useful both for the anti-separitists and himself by intervening in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS due to the TTIP trade deals.The beginning of the upsurge in the separatist vote can be traced to Salmond using this to his advantage in the 2nd tv debate with Darling. All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin. That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
The more I think about it, the less I think splitting is feasible unless the YES vote is decisive ie 55%+.
Less than 55% and the whole thing will get bogged down in acrimony, recrimination, legal challenges, judicial reviews, allegations of fraud and corruption and heaven knows what else. Lets face it, it takes years just to get a moderate road building proposal through to the stage where building can start. This is far more complex.
In the end, it is those wanting a change to the status quo who need a decisive win, not those wanting to maintain it.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
So douze points, a N Korean ambassador, the right to pointlessly pontificate at 3.00 am at the UN with nobody listening, and the chance to wave at V Putin's reconnaissance aircraft as they photograph Ben Nevis with impunity. Oh and buffer all social justice as the economy's tanked.
Cameron is going to north of the border this week and his visit is likely to be counter-productive as he is a visible reminder of the old Etonian English Tories the Scots want rid of.He could,though,do something useful both for the anti-separitists and himself by intervening in the debate on the privatisation of the NHS due to the TTIP trade deals.The beginning of the upsurge in the separatist vote can be traced to Salmond using this to his advantage in the 2nd tv debate with Darling. All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin. That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
Why should people believe Cameron saying this one particular thing when they don't believe him saying other things?
Why should anyone believe anything Salmond says ?
I don't see why Cameron should be Labour's sock-monkey. In any case, a Scotland within the EU will be part of the TTIP wouldn't it?
only more so since to get in they'll have to sign up to EU treaty 2016.0. I'm still trying to figure out how arch capitalists like Souter are going to take to implementing the working hours directive, though doubtless captain bullshit has said he'll negotiate it all away.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
I am not so sure. Once the YES vote goes through, I reckon 65-70% will start backing Independence. It's the love for your country bit.
Yeah, people should confuse people voting No with people who would be angry with independence. Many No voters are not voting emotionally but pragmatically - one of Better Together's better strategies has been to make undecided feel clever by praising their analytical ability and to play up "how can you make a decision without information?". If faced with the reality of an actually independent Scotland those voters are going to pragmatically get on with making Scotland a success.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
That's a bold call! When the cash drains away; the high rate taxpayers follow it in their taxi to the airport or in their cars to Carlisle and Newcastle; when benefits are slashed; when basic rate taxes go up to 40%; when everything from food to stamps is costing more. And when the jobs have dried up - those wanting to work have to set off down to the hated South. Scots becoming the new Poles, working in whatever jobs they can to remit money back to feed their bairns....
At that point you think that Salmond will still be the hero who delivered independence - because living standards are not really an issue?
No, Salmond and the SNP generally will be reviled. But as he said a few months back - he would be happy to give up his political career and disband the SNP to secure independence.
I know SO is big on this "yes means yes" line - the people of FUK won't have them back if they try to change their minds pre-Independence , but i'm not so sure. It is rather difficult to produce a scenario whereby Westminster passes an Independence bill which few Scots are in favour of and when there are few Scots prepared to man the institutions necessary.
Of course if this scenario came to be (which i think would only be as a result of a Scottish economy collapse post "Yes" and pre-independence (not because it became clear that things like CU won't happen) then the whole current devolution settlement would be ripped up with most powers returning to Westminster.
Did Alex Salmond say "there no such thing as a no voter, just a deferred yes voter" on the Andrew Marr show? The man's dangerous and needs to bestopped
The more I think about it, the less I think splitting is feasible unless the YES vote is decisive ie 55%+.
Less than 55% and the whole thing will get bogged down in acrimony, recrimination, legal challenges, judicial reviews, allegations of fraud and corruption and heaven knows what else. Lets face it, it takes years just to get a moderate road building proposal through to the stage where building can start. This is far more complex.
In the end, it is those wanting a change to the status quo who need a decisive win, not those wanting to maintain it.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
Scotland also has it's own version of Coronation St. where everybody wears tam o'shanters and Tyrone goes round headbutting people.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Yes, I do.
Aren’t the British Curling teams entirely Scots? That’s a gold or two less at the Winter Olympics.
The more I think about it, the less I think splitting is feasible unless the YES vote is decisive ie 55%+.
Less than 55% and the whole thing will get bogged down in acrimony, recrimination, legal challenges, judicial reviews, allegations of fraud and corruption and heaven knows what else. Lets face it, it takes years just to get a moderate road building proposal through to the stage where building can start. This is far more complex.
In the end, it is those wanting a change to the status quo who need a decisive win, not those wanting to maintain it.
I disagree with what's essentially a Sir Humphrey approach. There are plenty of examples of countries gaining independence quickly. Unless the vote is *extremely* close (say, less than 0.5% in it), both sides will accept the outcome. That's not to say everything will go smoothly but there's no reason to delay independence which frankly would be more trouble than it's worth as it would mean both sides would dig in for better terms and the issue would dominate British politics to the exclusion of all else. Violence could be anticipated by those who thought the democratic process had been tried and shown to be a scam.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Yes, I do.
So Scotland should be a separate independent nation?
Are pollsters taking postal voters into account? At least 17% of the electorate have registered for a postal vote, and most have already voted.
And how does postal fraud split between the two sides? Yes have more people involved, many of whom believe their opponents are all things under the sun, which makes a person more likely to commit what they might term a professional foul. But no-one would accuse the unionist parties of not having some members with a similar attitude.
The closer the result is (and it could well be very close indeed), the higher the turnout and the higher the likelihood that the losing side will make accusations of large-scale fraud. (And most Edinburgh lawyers are unionist, so if Yes win there may be some interesting legal action.)
The only communication I've received from my MSP, who is SNP, was a questionnaire asking me how I was going to vote. Or to be exact, the question was the same as the referendum question but no reference was made to the referendum. The cover letter was on Holyrood-headed notepaper. Is this type of thing common? Can't recall a representative at local, Scottish or British level writing to me before to ask how I was planning to vote.
Have had Labour pester me several times. Enjoyed telling them where to go, latest was Margaret Curran yesterday. They must have good systems in place to invite me to tell them where to go multiple times online and by freepost.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
I am not so sure. Once the YES vote goes through, I reckon 65-70% will start backing Independence. It's the love for your country bit.
They will accept lowered living statndards for, say, 5 years. It will be sold as the "price" for freedom. Then like all economies , the Scottish economy will have rebalanced and start picking up.
The difficult years will be described as England's revenge. That line will be easily accepted.
Not really, much different here from 2008 - 2013 !
Personally, unless NO can win decisively, say, 10 points, I think it would be best to separate.
Yes, it does seem that it has come to an end. It's just a shame that it has happened on the back of issues that affect, alienate and infuriate millions of people across the UK that Westminster has failed to even engage with and which have allowed nationalist lies to flourish. I fear that Scottish austerity will last a lot longer than five years though. And the Scots will hate the SNP for that.
What I find genuinely distressing is that the c£1500 per head Barnett delivers to Scotland will be lost. And I don't think this has even dawned on the low information voter.
Whilst I dislike Barnett a lot, there's a lot of hood-winked voters out there at the very bottom of the heap. And they've been encouraged to sign up to vote for the very first time.
On a false prospectus. If someone values nationalism above all else - fine, but don't lie about it. Exactly The Same, But Better is a lie = but when you're at the bottom of the heap, doesn't it sound seductive?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
What symbolism? Scotland is a separate nation with its own football team and more fundamentally, a completely separate legal system and education system. What would be the point of unifying the football team? It would just be a way of getting Gareth Bale into the England team, but he is Welsh, not Scots.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Yes, I do.
So Scotland should be a separate independent nation?
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
What symbolism? Scotland is a separate nation with its own football team and more fundamentally, a completely separate legal system and education system. What would be the point of unifying the football team? It would just be a way of getting Gareth Bale into the England team, but he is Welsh, not Scots.
This referendum is not about independence for the Scottish nation. It is about independence for people living in Scotland.
I think it's pretty obvious that's not a genuine Orange Banner. In all likelihood, it's a spoof by Irish Republicans.
"Pretty obvious" huh?
That photograph has been very widely spread on social media, and very heavily commented on. I have never seen anyone else ever question its authenticity, from either side.
It is in fact very obvious that it is genuine. And these are the folks that form the backbone of the Bitter Together campaign in large chunks of the Central Belt.
for a start off the photos in Ireland you pillock.
The Sinn Fein logo of a UI is on the top of the banner.
#dicksonhead.
Bit of a clue in the words as well "Sharing their values and culture". The use of the word "their" is hardly something an Orange Orderist would put on their own banner!
don't confuse Stuart, he read it on the internet.
Stuart has rather embarrassed himself with that.
SO, nobody perfect , if it went by that there would be all round red faces on here daily with the amount of lies and guff that is posted.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Yes, I do.
Aren’t the British Curling teams entirely Scots? That’s a gold or two less at the Winter Olympics.
Not unless they keep getting dollops of cash from the lottery they won't.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
What symbolism? Scotland is a separate nation with its own football team and more fundamentally, a completely separate legal system and education system. What would be the point of unifying the football team? It would just be a way of getting Gareth Bale into the England team, but he is Welsh, not Scots.
Morning all. With the various SNP comments on not taking their share of UK debts. Could they renege on PFI payments on NHS hospitals etc? Where would the buck stop?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Yes, I do.
So Scotland should be a separate independent nation?
Site quality has seen a big drop since it became obvious the union was dead. It seems to have brought all sorts of No marks out of the woodwork and unfortunately a good few seem to have washed up on here and lowered the tone of the debate shockingly.
I think it's pretty obvious that's not a genuine Orange Banner. In all likelihood, it's a spoof by Irish Republicans.
"Pretty obvious" huh?
That photograph has been very widely spread on social media, and very heavily commented on. I have never seen anyone else ever question its authenticity, from either side.
It is in fact very obvious that it is genuine. And these are the folks that form the backbone of the Bitter Together campaign in large chunks of the Central Belt.
for a start off the photos in Ireland you pillock.
The Sinn Fein logo of a UI is on the top of the banner.
#dicksonhead.
Bit of a clue in the words as well "Sharing their values and culture". The use of the word "their" is hardly something an Orange Orderist would put on their own banner!
don't confuse Stuart, he read it on the internet.
Stuart has rather embarrassed himself with that.
SO, nobody perfect , if it went by that there would be all round red faces on here daily with the amount of lies and guff that is posted.
Did Alex Salmond say "there no such thing as a no voter, just a deferred yes voter" on the Andrew Marr show? The man's dangerous and needs to bestopped
It's the indicator of a dictator. It's not a question of winning over dissenting views. It's that I'm right and anyone who thinks differently is illegitimate.
I'm not making an anti independence point here. Salmond is becoming a dictator and needs to be replaced, for example by Sturgeon
What I find genuinely distressing is that the c£1500 per head Barnett delivers to Scotland will be lost. And I don't think this has even dawned on the low information voter.
Whilst I dislike Barnett a lot, there's a lot of hood-winked voters out there at the very bottom of the heap. And they've been encouraged to sign up to vote for the very first time.
On a false prospectus. If someone values nationalism above all else - fine, but don't lie about it. Exactly The Same, But Better is a lie = but when you're at the bottom of the heap, doesn't it sound seductive?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
Without Barnett there's a real danger that the Scottish NHS will collapse and the Union will have to deal with large numbers of health tourists from North of the border.
I think it's pretty obvious that's not a genuine Orange Banner. In all likelihood, it's a spoof by Irish Republicans.
"Pretty obvious" huh?
That photograph has been very widely spread on social media, and very heavily commented on. I have never seen anyone else ever question its authenticity, from either side.
It is in fact very obvious that it is genuine. And these are the folks that form the backbone of the Bitter Together campaign in large chunks of the Central Belt.
for a start off the photos in Ireland you pillock.
The Sinn Fein logo of a UI is on the top of the banner.
#dicksonhead.
Bit of a clue in the words as well "Sharing their values and culture". The use of the word "their" is hardly something an Orange Orderist would put on their own banner!
don't confuse Stuart, he read it on the internet.
Stuart has rather embarrassed himself with that.
SO, nobody perfect , if it went by that there would be all round red faces on here daily with the amount of lies and guff that is posted.
You are telling me. We all believe what we want to believe. An Stuart so wanted that banner to be authentic. Sadly for him, it wasn't. Or it was, but it was a Sinn Fein one.
As an 18 year old he was a Scot. Then the marketing guys took over and basically told him the difference between a market of 5 million and one that of 60 million.
Guess which one he chose ?
But as an EU member , as long both countries are in it, it would hardly make a difference.
Bet he will not drape himself either with the union flag or the Saltire.
What I find genuinely distressing is that the c£1500 per head Barnett delivers to Scotland will be lost. And I don't think this has even dawned on the low information voter.
Whilst I dislike Barnett a lot, there's a lot of hood-winked voters out there at the very bottom of the heap. And they've been encouraged to sign up to vote for the very first time.
On a false prospectus. If someone values nationalism above all else - fine, but don't lie about it. Exactly The Same, But Better is a lie = but when you're at the bottom of the heap, doesn't it sound seductive?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
ha Ha Ha what about thick low information posters that talk out of their erchie. You silly mare you actually believe what you read in the Daily Mail.
What I find genuinely distressing is that the c£1500 per head Barnett delivers to Scotland will be lost. And I don't think this has even dawned on the low information voter.
Whilst I dislike Barnett a lot, there's a lot of hood-winked voters out there at the very bottom of the heap. And they've been encouraged to sign up to vote for the very first time.
On a false prospectus. If someone values nationalism above all else - fine, but don't lie about it. Exactly The Same, But Better is a lie = but when you're at the bottom of the heap, doesn't it sound seductive?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
Without Barnett there's a real danger that the Scottish NHS will collapse and the Union will have to deal with large numbers of health tourists from North of the border.
Nah, they'll just have to stop spending the extra money on things we don't have elsewhere - free tuition, free personal care etc etc
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Yes, I do.
Aren’t the British Curling teams entirely Scots? That’s a gold or two less at the Winter Olympics.
Not unless they keep getting dollops of cash from the lottery they won't.
Think we can manage a lottery Alan, like everything else we pay more in than we get out.
Time to start thinking what an Indy Scotland would look like.
I've been pondering this, and I reckon it would, for the short to medium term, look almost identical to the Scotlanc we know today, only noticeably poorer.
The impoverishment would come from the instability: a collapse in investment, the 'border effect' eroding trade, the finance sector fleeing south.
The identicality arises from plain logic.
Examples: currency. After initial chaos there probably will be currency union, otherwise Scotland would collapse as its banking system implodes, infecting the rest of the FUK, but it will be a CU on English terms. So Scotland's tax rates, interest rates, borrowing, will all be set in London, as now. Only without any Scottish input.
Example 2: immigration. Scotland, according to the SNP, wants a radically different immigration policy to FUK. However this would mean a manned frontier across Britain, further screwing trade flows, so it won't happen. IScotland will be forced to adopt the same immigration policy as FUK has now.
Example 3: culture. 'British' TV and media will still dominate in iScotland, simply because they are bigger, richer and therefore more appealing to consumers. The language is the same so Scotland will just import all this. The difference is there will be virtually no Scottish voices heard in that media, unlike now.
I could go on. But you get the point.
Salmond is right in a sense. There will be few changes after independence. Except Scotland will be economically damaged (as will FUK, but less so).
Ironic.
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
Scotland already has separate football, rugby (OK, apart from Lions), and cricket.
I know.
Do you think Scotland "should" have separate sport, given the symbolism and so on?
Yes, I do.
Aren’t the British Curling teams entirely Scots? That’s a gold or two less at the Winter Olympics.
Not unless they keep getting dollops of cash from the lottery they won't.
Think we can manage a lottery Alan, like everything else we pay more in than we get out.
Scots are net contributors to the lottery? Explains a lot
I think it's pretty obvious that's not a genuine Orange Banner. In all likelihood, it's a spoof by Irish Republicans.
"Pretty obvious" huh?
That photograph has been very widely spread on social media, and very heavily commented on. I have never seen anyone else ever question its authenticity, from either side.
It is in fact very obvious that it is genuine. And these are the folks that form the backbone of the Bitter Together campaign in large chunks of the Central Belt.
for a start off the photos in Ireland you pillock.
The Sinn Fein logo of a UI is on the top of the banner.
#dicksonhead.
Bit of a clue in the words as well "Sharing their values and culture". The use of the word "their" is hardly something an Orange Orderist would put on their own banner!
don't confuse Stuart, he read it on the internet.
Stuart has rather embarrassed himself with that.
SO, nobody perfect , if it went by that there would be all round red faces on here daily with the amount of lies and guff that is posted.
And crude abuse.
yes England does abuse our crude, thieves and rogues right enough , I agree with you.
Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote. The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a “never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.
...Mr Salmond predicted that the UK Government would drop its opposition to a eurozone-style currency union with a separate Scotland in the days after a Yes vote.
This prompted Alistair Darling, leader of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, to argue that that Mr Salmond was performing a “premature victory lap” before Scots had even gone to the polls and warned his plan relied on the UK Government “falling into line” with his wishes.
Personally, unless NO can win decisively, say, 10 points, I think it would be best to separate.
I think that's a ridiculous statement.
If NO win by a small margin, negotiations will ensue on giving the Scottish government greater powers. The SNP leadership will obviously be involved in a big way. The country will become more united.
If YES win by a small margin, negotiations will ensue on the terms of independence. Problems will be experienced. (Don't believe me? Ask Deutsche Bank. Ask the international financial markets.) Guess what pollsters will do. That's right: they'll conduct polls to assess what percentage of people still want independence. Do you really think that percentage will ever go far above 50%, when the idea becomes associated in the minds of more and more people with ideas such as "capital flight", "economic depression" and "large-scale cuts"? The percentage will, during the course of negotiations, fall below 50% at least some of the time. Indeed it's likely to fall below 50% and stay there. You can't sell sunshine to all of the people all of the time, especially when all the banks up sticks and the "£85000 issue" starts to penetrate their noggins. The country will stay divided in a big way.
So no, Mr or Ms Surbiton. You need to win more votes than No to get your separation.
And BTW I think if either side makes it to 55%, it's more likely to be No.
I also think that at the margin (and all votes in a referendum are equal) it will be easier for No to get those extra few votes out than Yes. Remember that Yes have been in everyone's faces for some time, and they are still behind in most polls.
The Orange Order's march seemed stupid to many people. Wouldn't it alienate working class Catholics in the Glasgow area? But perhaps it wasn't so stupid. If it encourages a few more percent of strong Protestants to vote No rather than abstain, the direction of the overall shift it brings could well be towards No. The aforementioned demographic in the Glasgow area are currently being wooed by Labour in a big way. Posters are going up saying not "No Thanks" or "UK OK" but "Vote No", signed "Scottish Labour".
What I find genuinely distressing is that the c£1500 per head Barnett delivers to Scotland will be lost. And I don't think this has even dawned on the low information voter.
Whilst I dislike Barnett a lot, there's a lot of hood-winked voters out there at the very bottom of the heap. And they've been encouraged to sign up to vote for the very first time.
On a false prospectus. If someone values nationalism above all else - fine, but don't lie about it. Exactly The Same, But Better is a lie = but when you're at the bottom of the heap, doesn't it sound seductive?
Do you think any of that really matters to nationalists? Scotland will get a frontier, it will get a UN seat, an Olympic team and a shot at Eurovision. That's what nationalism is really about - the need to be seen as separate. Living standards are not really an issue.
You are quite right that economic matters don't matter for nationalists. However they DO matter for the unfortunate ordinary people of Scotland who they have tried to pull the wool over about the ecomic hardships in the first 10-20 years that will be inevitable after independence.
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
I agree. There will be huge disillusion and anger once Scotland has voted Yes when ordinary Scots realise they have been taken for fools by the nationalists. And the nationalists will not care one iota. They will have got what they wanted.
Without Barnett there's a real danger that the Scottish NHS will collapse and the Union will have to deal with large numbers of health tourists from North of the border.
Nah, they'll just have to stop spending the extra money on things we don't have elsewhere - free tuition, free personal care etc etc
Monica is as thick as mince, thinks collecting JSA is subsidising Scotland.
Dream on about lower living standards post-independence.
Some things you delusionals don't get.
Firstly, Scotland contributes far more in taxes than it gets back. So, focusing on the government spend on Scotland and ignoring income is the kind of perceptual selectivity that Little Englanders and the Tory elite are well known for - it keeps the privileges on tap.
People are voting Yes not just because we could ran our country better than the corrupt City banksters and their political lackeys in Westminster can but because financially the case is overwhelming.
All that aside the government spending / subsidies mask reality. For example Olympic spending was considered UK-wide rather than London. Same with all the other hidden subsidies London gets which keeps it afloat. And the costs of maintaining Trident are attributed to Scotland despite it being a UK expense. Once you get the forensic accountants in you start to see the per head government spending in Scotland is nowhere close to the propaganda bandied around.
Interesting to note that the new boss at the BBC is being sued over involvement in laundering money for terrorists at HSBC. A political post backed by MPs - further sign that Westminster is co-opted by the financial class too. Your banksters might have control of you souls in this cleptocracy we suffer within but with any luck we Scots will show you how to deal with them.
Did Alex Salmond say "there no such thing as a no voter, just a deferred yes voter" on the Andrew Marr show? The man's dangerous and needs to bestopped
It's the indicator of a dictator. It's not a question of winning over dissenting views. It's that I'm right and anyone who thinks differently is illegitimate.
I'm not making an anti independence point here. Salmond is becoming a dictator and needs to be replaced, for example by Sturgeon
My god it gets nuttier by the minute on here. Where have they all come from.
I'm kicking myself - have to fly to Krakow for two days on business this evening. Could have gone this morning and fitted in a visit to the museum / memorial at Auschwitz, only 40 km away, had I but thought ahead. Have always wanted to see for myself. Damn!
My daughter did that just last week, she said it was very touristy and not at all the emotional experience she had been expecting...
@Sunil_Prasannan it's very simple; the first international football and rugby matches ever played were Scotland-v-England matches. Why should any other Jonny-come-lately-to-our-sports nations be able to tell us that we can't play as separate countries?
Comments
You mean "unicorns paid for by someone else"
Mr. Patrick, I don't think we should change the flag. However, if we did that would at least be a good alternative, unlike some of the bloody awful designs I've seen.
*or bad depending on your point of view, considering the knock-on effect on political make-up of the country.
I'd guess there may be a slight reduction in Welsh MP's for a bit more devolution here but with Scotland gone EV4EL might die down as Wales and NI would remain as very small anomalies in an essentially English system, unlikely to alter England's elections more than once every fifty odd years ( especially as NI has Sinn Fein seats that remain inactive in HoC terms).
All Cameron has to do is declare the NHS will be exempt from this enforced privatisation.This offers both short-term and long-term gain for both him and his party and could just save his own skin.
That's my advice to Dave,if he really wants to put his interventions to good use.Keep the NHS public.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/voters-want-nhs-exempt-us-trade-pact-ttip-eu-privatisation
Wow. Just wow when you think about it.
With the various SNP comments on not taking their share of UK debts.
Could they renege on PFI payments on NHS hospitals etc?
Where would the buck stop?
Also I wonder how the people of the tenements will react when they discover that they in particular will pay for it as the price of a prosperous independent Scotland after 10-20 years will be the end of the welfare state as they know it. It will of course be very good for them, but they won't like it one bit.
And emotionally Salmond might be quite happy to have a border, as it helps cement independence from England and helps make sure it doesn't get reversed.
The debt thing is not serious. It's the UK's debt and "Scotland's share" will just be an internal arrangement between the FUK and Scotland. There are therefore plenty of ways for the FUK to recover it if they so chose. Retaining an equivalent portion of Scottish Assets. Adding clauses to future trade agreements containing %charges for repayment of the debt. Or simply making life difficult for Scotland to get things it wants.
And at the end of the day, the UK could write the debt off tomorrow if they so wished (and judged that it wouldn't have a significant effect on inflation). It wouldn't even require any new money printing since a greater than the equivalent sum is already "held" by the Bank of England through Quantitative Easing. So rather than money printing it would involve the cancellation of money burning.
And how does postal fraud split between the two sides? Yes have more people involved, many of whom believe their opponents are all things under the sun, which makes a person more likely to commit what they might term a professional foul. But no-one would accuse the unionist parties of not having some members with a similar attitude.
The closer the result is (and it could well be very close indeed), the higher the turnout and the higher the likelihood that the losing side will make accusations of large-scale fraud. (And most Edinburgh lawyers are unionist, so if Yes win there may be some interesting legal action.)
The only communication I've received from my MSP, who is SNP, was a questionnaire asking me how I was going to vote. Or to be exact, the question was the same as the referendum question but no reference was made to the referendum. The cover letter was on Holyrood-headed notepaper. Is this type of thing common? Can't recall a representative at local, Scottish or British level writing to me before to ask how I was planning to vote.
At that point you think that Salmond will still be the hero who delivered independence - because living standards are not really an issue?
They will accept lowered living statndards for, say, 5 years. It will be sold as the "price" for freedom. Then like all economies , the Scottish economy will have rebalanced and start picking up.
The difficult years will be described as England's revenge. That line will be easily accepted.
Not really, much different here from 2008 - 2013 !
Personally, unless NO can win decisively, say, 10 points, I think it would be best to separate.
We'll see though.
Less than 55% and the whole thing will get bogged down in acrimony, recrimination, legal challenges, judicial reviews, allegations of fraud and corruption and heaven knows what else. Lets face it, it takes years just to get a moderate road building proposal through to the stage where building can start. This is far more complex.
In the end, it is those wanting a change to the status quo who need a decisive win, not those wanting to maintain it.
Of course if this scenario came to be (which i think would only be as a result of a Scottish economy collapse post "Yes" and pre-independence (not because it became clear that things like CU won't happen) then the whole current devolution settlement would be ripped up with most powers returning to Westminster.
Like *deferred success* at exams? That got the ridicule it deserved.
Set a date and keep to it. It concentrates minds.
Whilst I dislike Barnett a lot, there's a lot of hood-winked voters out there at the very bottom of the heap. And they've been encouraged to sign up to vote for the very first time.
On a false prospectus. If someone values nationalism above all else - fine, but don't lie about it. Exactly The Same, But Better is a lie = but when you're at the bottom of the heap, doesn't it sound seductive?
So Scotland should be a separate independent nation?
If that is what it wants.
"United" Kingdom?
It's the indicator of a dictator. It's not a question of winning over dissenting views. It's that I'm right and anyone who thinks differently is illegitimate.
I'm not making an anti independence point here. Salmond is becoming a dictator and needs to be replaced, for example by Sturgeon
Hmmmmmmmm....
#imsayingnothing
As an 18 year old he was a Scot. Then the marketing guys took over and basically told him the difference between a market of 5 million and one that of 60 million.
Guess which one he chose ?
But as an EU member , as long both countries are in it, it would hardly make a difference.
Bet he will not drape himself either with the union flag or the Saltire.
If NO win by a small margin, negotiations will ensue on giving the Scottish government greater powers. The SNP leadership will obviously be involved in a big way. The country will become more united.
If YES win by a small margin, negotiations will ensue on the terms of independence. Problems will be experienced. (Don't believe me? Ask Deutsche Bank. Ask the international financial markets.) Guess what pollsters will do. That's right: they'll conduct polls to assess what percentage of people still want independence. Do you really think that percentage will ever go far above 50%, when the idea becomes associated in the minds of more and more people with ideas such as "capital flight", "economic depression" and "large-scale cuts"? The percentage will, during the course of negotiations, fall below 50% at least some of the time. Indeed it's likely to fall below 50% and stay there. You can't sell sunshine to all of the people all of the time, especially when all the banks up sticks and the "£85000 issue" starts to penetrate their noggins. The country will stay divided in a big way.
So no, Mr or Ms Surbiton. You need to win more votes than No to get your separation.
And BTW I think if either side makes it to 55%, it's more likely to be No.
I also think that at the margin (and all votes in a referendum are equal) it will be easier for No to get those extra few votes out than Yes. Remember that Yes have been in everyone's faces for some time, and they are still behind in most polls.
The Orange Order's march seemed stupid to many people. Wouldn't it alienate working class Catholics in the Glasgow area? But perhaps it wasn't so stupid. If it encourages a few more percent of strong Protestants to vote No rather than abstain, the direction of the overall shift it brings could well be towards No. The aforementioned demographic in the Glasgow area are currently being wooed by Labour in a big way. Posters are going up saying not "No Thanks" or "UK OK" but "Vote No", signed "Scottish Labour".
I reckon No will get around 54%.
Dream on about lower living standards post-independence.
Some things you delusionals don't get.
Firstly, Scotland contributes far more in taxes than it gets back. So, focusing on the government spend on Scotland and ignoring income is the kind of perceptual selectivity that Little Englanders and the Tory elite are well known for - it keeps the privileges on tap.
People are voting Yes not just because we could ran our country better than the corrupt City banksters and their political lackeys in Westminster can but because financially the case is overwhelming.
All that aside the government spending / subsidies mask reality. For example Olympic spending was considered UK-wide rather than London. Same with all the other hidden subsidies London gets which keeps it afloat. And the costs of maintaining Trident are attributed to Scotland despite it being a UK expense. Once you get the forensic accountants in you start to see the per head government spending in Scotland is nowhere close to the propaganda bandied around.
Interesting to note that the new boss at the BBC is being sued over involvement in laundering money for terrorists at HSBC. A political post backed by MPs - further sign that Westminster is co-opted by the financial class too. Your banksters might have control of you souls in this cleptocracy we suffer within but with any luck we Scots will show you how to deal with them.
Go smoke a pipe for a bit.